Jack points to The Oregonian article. I must have missed it. Anyway, it is an opportunity for some folks to get reintroduced to free speech.

Go read it then come back here . . . as I rant about the folly of the OEA charge against Bill Sizemore, and the folks that seize upon the charge for glorification and or demonization, which is really just gloating at the diminishment of free speech by idiots for fleeting political gain. Campaign finance law is a weapon not an enabler.

My favorite is saying that anyone can go round up signatures, in a petition, from 50.1 percent of the number of voters in the last election and hand them to the secretary of state. Heck, one could pay the gatherers any way they like. The secretary of state's power is limited to only rejecting the submission as not in compliance with the rules that are a prerequisite to placement of such petitions on the ballot. The criminalization of signature gathering is likewise limited, at least the punishment is limited to refusal to place a matter on the ballot, not civil penalties or jail time.

In this context, the scaling up of the Sizemore damages, to match the cost of political campaigning of his opponent, was beyond merely absurd. The different outcomes is sort of like the luck of the draw on getting the right attorney or the right judge, or a little of both. The claims of the OEA were based on the criminality of the conduct, at least the tripling of the damages and the right, the campaign law right, to any damages to OEA at all in the first place.

The demon, if there is any, is the person or group who tries to criminalize the speech of others.

The Oregonian, when they speak, when they speak on election campaigns and on measures are given an exception to campaign finance law rather than being treated as a PAC, a glorified PAC unto itself. A PAC is nothing more, in reality, than a special purpose newspaper; and at least we know that its claims are for a special purpose. Only The Oregonian claims the mantel of wisdom and good will as to its' positions. Deception is to hard to quantify when applied to the mere utterance of words, but if one demands a detailed list of contributors then it nothing more than some technical thing that gives the illusion of objectivity. It is a burden, and I believe an impermissible burden because it extends to civil penalties and criminal penalties that are not equally applicable to the newspapers that speak on the very same matters.

FURTHER THOUGHTS March 31, 1 AM:

Give up the tax breaks and all is fair game.

Anonymous handbills are OK. The NAACP can withhold their member list from the demands of Alabama authorities.

The tax deductibility is an essential thing in the campaign finance transparency scheme, that is, without the voluntary acceptance of the terms of the tax deductibility, the government, via the odd device of the revenue department, would be virtually powerless. I would think that as to core speech the scrutiny of a state's restriction is at its "zenith."

The effort to latch onto, legally, someone for their speech is perhaps best illustrated in the Southern Poverty Law Center action on behalf of Mulugeta Seraw. There was a genuine crime that was wholly unrelated to the financing of that campaign, and the unique challenge was the remoteness of the financial and vocal support for the illegal act. With campaign finance, given the tax deductions, the target is the speech via the transparent subterfuge of transparency of supporters, and the occupations of those supporters. There is no crime but for the violation of the conditions upon which the tax breaks are given; one condition being the publication of the supporters. The desire for transparency for the benefit of the public is the public purpose that justifies the “offer” of the tax break.

There is no duty upon a contributor to claim a tax deduction on a donation, and the responsibility of a campaign to report received donations is to aid in the policing of claims of tax deductions by individuals toward political campaigns. The gradual extension of fluff restrictions on the campaigns themselves and their ability to speak might give some folks the impression that the restrictions can be compelled. They cannot, that is why the tax breaks exist.

The state interest, as articulated by the US Supreme Court, for a Colorado signature gathering restriction case was the need to measure the support of the public so as to warrant the cost of the placement of an item on the ballot. Does anyone think that in the last presidential election that Nader was eliminated because of the cost of placing his name on the ballot? The refusal to count signatures because of a correctable sequential numbering gaff is such a transparent political attack on the process that it makes any citizen's desire for anonymity look harmless.

I just cannot wait for the anti-tax folks to voluntarily give up the tax deductions on their campaigns, and do like Mr. Moyer, and help protect all our free speech rights.